@HMcJeon3y4 @Peters_Glen @JKikstra I disagree, it is the other way around. Since 1.5C is not explicitly defined as 'no overshoot' target, it is of course allowed under PA. In this perspective 2100 and 0.1C are actually constraints, even if rather weak ones
@Peters_Glen well, this will be one of the main #climate policy questions as we approach 1.5C threshold crossing in 2030s, as estimated in IPCC WG I. There's still not much research literature on this although eminent researchers have been asking for it so
@theresphysics -50% by 2030 is from set of pathways w/ budget&temp overshoot (OS), can only be considered 1.5C-compliant when you extend timeframe to 2100. Once you do that, you got a flexible deadline unless you set hard OS limits 1.5C w/o OS more li
RT @Oliver_Geden: Removing "by 2100" for 1.5C goal might be well-intended but would in fact remove any constraint by when return from likel…
RT @Oliver_Geden: Removing "by 2100" for 1.5C goal might be well-intended but would in fact remove any constraint by when return from likel…
RT @Oliver_Geden: Removing "by 2100" for 1.5C goal might be well-intended but would in fact remove any constraint by when return from likel…
RT @Oliver_Geden: Removing "by 2100" for 1.5C goal might be well-intended but would in fact remove any constraint by when return from likel…
RT @Oliver_Geden: Removing "by 2100" for 1.5C goal might be well-intended but would in fact remove any constraint by when return from likel…
RT @Oliver_Geden: Removing "by 2100" for 1.5C goal might be well-intended but would in fact remove any constraint by when return from likel…
RT @Oliver_Geden: @theresphysics @hausfath @climateMorrow @DKeithClimate As @climateMorrow argues, it depends on the broader context, and I…
Counterpoint https://t.co/tmkvJPVjly
@theresphysics @hausfath @climateMorrow @DKeithClimate As @climateMorrow argues, it depends on the broader context, and I agree. I just don't understand why removing "by 2100" should be interpreted as a big win for the environmental camp, since including i
RT @Oliver_Geden: Removing "by 2100" for 1.5C goal might be well-intended but would in fact remove any constraint by when return from likel…
RT @Oliver_Geden: Removing "by 2100" for 1.5C goal might be well-intended but would in fact remove any constraint by when return from likel…
RT @Oliver_Geden: Removing "by 2100" for 1.5C goal might be well-intended but would in fact remove any constraint by when return from likel…
RT @Oliver_Geden: Removing "by 2100" for 1.5C goal might be well-intended but would in fact remove any constraint by when return from likel…
RT @Oliver_Geden: Removing "by 2100" for 1.5C goal might be well-intended but would in fact remove any constraint by when return from likel…
RT @Oliver_Geden: Removing "by 2100" for 1.5C goal might be well-intended but would in fact remove any constraint by when return from likel…
RT @Oliver_Geden: Removing "by 2100" for 1.5C goal might be well-intended but would in fact remove any constraint by when return from likel…
@PeaceWestphalia Yes, this is also my understanding of the intention behind this change (it seems IPCC authors felt misrepresented): https://t.co/YXfO6PzMk2; but removing 2100 could also turn out to weaken the 1.5°C target https://t.co/1Mr7DUOgUP.
RT @Oliver_Geden: Removing "by 2100" for 1.5C goal might be well-intended but would in fact remove any constraint by when return from likel…
RT @Oliver_Geden: Removing "by 2100" for 1.5C goal might be well-intended but would in fact remove any constraint by when return from likel…
RT @Oliver_Geden: Removing "by 2100" for 1.5C goal might be well-intended but would in fact remove any constraint by when return from likel…
RT @Oliver_Geden: Removing "by 2100" for 1.5C goal might be well-intended but would in fact remove any constraint by when return from likel…
Removing "by 2100" for 1.5C goal might be well-intended but would in fact remove any constraint by when return from likely overshoot (see #IPCC WG1 SPM). Then even 2200 could be interpreted as 'Paris-compatible' See our piece in @NatureGeosci https://t.co/
RT @Oliver_Geden: "Constructive ambiguity" is a useful tool to reach agreement under #UNFCCC. But problematic that #ParisAgreement doesn't…
RT @Oliver_Geden: "Constructive ambiguity" is a useful tool to reach agreement under #UNFCCC. But problematic that #ParisAgreement doesn't…
"Constructive ambiguity" is a useful tool to reach agreement under #UNFCCC. But problematic that #ParisAgreement doesn't exclude or at least sets clear constraints for 1.5C overshoot. Creates way too much flexibility See our 2017 @NatureGeosci piece https:
And then there's always the option of 'overshoot' (not only budgets but also temperature). Not hard to imagine governments not sticking to their preference for 'no to low overshoot' scenarios (as in #SR15) See @andreasloeschel and I in @NatureGeosci https
Here are some articles I wrote about deadline modifications (stemming of course from political inaction, but at the same time masking inaction) https://t.co/QIVmHpAI9x https://t.co/IBMCpNvdNz https://t.co/rX4FhtQyoX https://t.co/u3Ri69zxPh (https://t.co/HL
New languagebto ensurennothing is done..
RT @Oliver_Geden: (2) ParisAgreement is not very specific on temperature overshoot. Moving from a 'not to exceed' target to a 'temperature…
(2) ParisAgreement is not very specific on temperature overshoot. Moving from a 'not to exceed' target to a 'temperature overshoot target gives governments a lot more flexibility, all the more if there are no constraints on duration & magnitude https:/
RT @Oliver_Geden: If this were true it'd only show that even the EU, claiming to have a science-based #climate policy, doesn't know how amb…
RT @Oliver_Geden: If this were true it'd only show that even the EU, claiming to have a science-based #climate policy, doesn't know how amb…
RT @Oliver_Geden: If this were true it'd only show that even the EU, claiming to have a science-based #climate policy, doesn't know how amb…
RT @Oliver_Geden: If this were true it'd only show that even the EU, claiming to have a science-based #climate policy, doesn't know how amb…
RT @Oliver_Geden: If this were true it'd only show that even the EU, claiming to have a science-based #climate policy, doesn't know how amb…
RT @Oliver_Geden: If this were true it'd only show that even the EU, claiming to have a science-based #climate policy, doesn't know how amb…
If this were true it'd only show that even the EU, claiming to have a science-based #climate policy, doesn't know how ambitious 1.5C target would be - and what it'd mean for EU targets [overshoot targets are of course problematic, politically https://t.co/
RT @Oliver_Geden: then how can it even be possible to consider #1o5 still to be a feasible #climate target? temperature overshoot (to be br…
then how can it even be possible to consider #1o5 still to be a feasible #climate target? temperature overshoot (to be brought down by massive volumes of negative emissions) - probably not a particular hot topic next week https://t.co/ALVJRgmzNZ [MT @WMO]
RT @Oliver_Geden: @LeoHickman Won't happen at @UNFCCC level since ambiguity means political flexibility. See my @NatureGeosci pieces on car…
@LeoHickman Won't happen at @UNFCCC level since ambiguity means political flexibility. See my @NatureGeosci pieces on carbon budgets https://t.co/BGZDqKottf & temperature overshoot https://t.co/0DFimdgYOb @IPCC_CH could simply set criteria and policyma
RT @Oliver_Geden: but it's highly unlikely that there will be a policy consensus, because politicians and climate policymakers like ambigui…
RT @Oliver_Geden: but it's highly unlikely that there will be a policy consensus, because politicians and climate policymakers like ambigui…
RT @Oliver_Geden: but it's highly unlikely that there will be a policy consensus, because politicians and climate policymakers like ambigui…
RT @Oliver_Geden: but it's highly unlikely that there will be a policy consensus, because politicians and climate policymakers like ambigui…
but it's highly unlikely that there will be a policy consensus, because politicians and climate policymakers like ambiguity, since it gives them more flexibility. see our @NatureGeosci comment on the case of temperature overshoot targets like 1.5C https://
RT @Oliver_Geden: (1) "Define limits for temperature overshoot targets" My new @NatureGeosci commentary, together with @andreasloeschel htt…
RT @Oliver_Geden: (1) "Define limits for temperature overshoot targets" My new @NatureGeosci commentary, together with @andreasloeschel htt…
RT @Oliver_Geden: (1) "Define limits for temperature overshoot targets" My new @NatureGeosci commentary, together with @andreasloeschel htt…
More people need to understand that we are already there. https://t.co/4n0vx9os8p
RT @Oliver_Geden: Most political leaders and even #climate policymakers don't know that meeting 1.5C target is only possible with temporary…
RT @Oliver_Geden: Most political leaders and even #climate policymakers don't know that meeting 1.5C target is only possible with temporary…
https://t.co/6SUT0CugUY Define limits for temperature overshoot targets
RT @Oliver_Geden: New paper on temperature overshoot and negative emissions, by T Wigley. Seems a bit optimistic, and accepts long overshoo…
RT @Oliver_Geden: New paper on temperature overshoot and negative emissions, by T Wigley. Seems a bit optimistic, and accepts long overshoo…
RT @Oliver_Geden: New paper on temperature overshoot and negative emissions, by T Wigley. Seems a bit optimistic, and accepts long overshoo…
New paper on temperature overshoot and negative emissions, by T Wigley. Seems a bit optimistic, and accepts long overshoot period. https://t.co/xIFvn5ysNz @andreasloeschel and I recommend ending any temp overshoot by 2100 to ensure political accountability
RT @Oliver_Geden: Most political leaders and even #climate policymakers don't know that meeting 1.5C target is only possible with temporary…
very nice! #fb https://t.co/C3Q8xfeACW
RT @Oliver_Geden: Most political leaders and even #climate policymakers don't know that meeting 1.5C target is only possible with temporary…
Most political leaders and even #climate policymakers don't know that meeting 1.5C target is only possible with temporary overshoot... https://t.co/NJVCr09v2g #OnePlanetSummit https://t.co/pROVhu1Nyr
RT @JohnDPMorgan: Because you only need to melt the ice once to destroy those ecosystems (etc.), and negative emissions technologies won’t…
Indeed. https://t.co/pqv164SZzT
Because you only need to melt the ice once to destroy those ecosystems (etc.), and negative emissions technologies won’t happen https://t.co/mrEmdOkg45
RT @WWU_Muenster: Kommentar von WWU-Professor Löschel in Nature Geoscience zu unintendierten Nebeneffekten des 1,5°C-Ziels mit Überschreit…
How tricky it could be to talk about temperature #overshoot... https://t.co/qbCCdVPdDk
RT @duycks: timely contribution to discussions on emission pathways: scientists & policy makers must define clear limits for "temperature o…
RT @duycks: timely contribution to discussions on emission pathways: scientists & policy makers must define clear limits for "temperature o…
RT @duycks: timely contribution to discussions on emission pathways: scientists & policy makers must define clear limits for "temperature o…
RT @duycks: timely contribution to discussions on emission pathways: scientists & policy makers must define clear limits for "temperature o…
RT @duycks: timely contribution to discussions on emission pathways: scientists & policy makers must define clear limits for "temperature o…
timely contribution to discussions on emission pathways: scientists & policy makers must define clear limits for "temperature overshoot" to avoid undermining #ParisAgreement targets - #1o5C #IPCC https://t.co/5slCEH4wQl by @andreasloeschel @Oliver_Gede
Überengagierte Klimapolitik könne zur Abschwächung der Klimapolitik führen. https://t.co/uZceA6jalG
RT @Peters_Glen: Why settle for 1.5°C? If we are ok to have temperature overshoot, then why stop at 1.5°C? Why not have a longer overshoot…
Das ist korrekt. Aber es geschieht nicht "unintentionally", sondern mit voller Absicht. https://t.co/P6097ne38o
RT @Peters_Glen: Why settle for 1.5°C? If we are ok to have temperature overshoot, then why stop at 1.5°C? Why not have a longer overshoot…
RT @Peters_Glen: Why settle for 1.5°C? If we are ok to have temperature overshoot, then why stop at 1.5°C? Why not have a longer overshoot…
RT @Oliver_Geden: The problem of overshooting 1.5°C and the crucial role of CO2 removal in bringing temperatures down again rapidly Good @s…
Great point. If we can drastically reduce emissions fast (highly questionable) and develop CO2 extraction (tech which does not yet exist) at planetary scale, there are promising possibilities. https://t.co/VxN5mqIwvE
Not a good picture #climatebreakdown https://t.co/3vZzU0Q1wB
A 75% increase in current GMT above pre industrial with a sustained 40-50yr overshoot enter into the ocean memory/ climate system. With many uncertainties probably remaining around non linear thresholds etc. https://t.co/1vAB7t877J https://t.co/lcNS8OI28i
RT @Peters_Glen: Why settle for 1.5°C? If we are ok to have temperature overshoot, then why stop at 1.5°C? Why not have a longer overshoot…
Geden, Löschl: Define Limits for Overshoot Targets https://t.co/JtmuTfK6Py?amp=1
RT @Peters_Glen: Why settle for 1.5°C? If we are ok to have temperature overshoot, then why stop at 1.5°C? Why not have a longer overshoot…
RT @Oliver_Geden: The problem of overshooting 1.5°C and the crucial role of CO2 removal in bringing temperatures down again rapidly Good @s…
I agree : stabilisation of temperature is not an objective, but well below 2°C is ok and we could prefrer agriculture CH4 rather than 0°C https://t.co/yyHzzXMAfb
RT @Peters_Glen: Why settle for 1.5°C? If we are ok to have temperature overshoot, then why stop at 1.5°C? Why not have a longer overshoot…
Why settle for 1.5°C? If we are ok to have temperature overshoot, then why stop at 1.5°C? Why not have a longer overshoot & stop at 1°C? Better still, 0°C? https://t.co/SEsUf3FoOZ https://t.co/Hu2niWqqSy
RT @Oliver_Geden: The problem of overshooting 1.5°C and the crucial role of CO2 removal in bringing temperatures down again rapidly Good @s…
RT @Oliver_Geden: The problem of overshooting 1.5°C and the crucial role of CO2 removal in bringing temperatures down again rapidly Good @s…
RT @Oliver_Geden: The problem of overshooting 1.5°C and the crucial role of CO2 removal in bringing temperatures down again rapidly Good @s…
RT @Oliver_Geden: The problem of overshooting 1.5°C and the crucial role of CO2 removal in bringing temperatures down again rapidly Good @s…
RT @Oliver_Geden: The problem of overshooting 1.5°C and the crucial role of CO2 removal in bringing temperatures down again rapidly Good @s…
RT @Oliver_Geden: The problem of overshooting 1.5°C and the crucial role of CO2 removal in bringing temperatures down again rapidly Good @s…
The problem of overshooting 1.5°C and the crucial role of CO2 removal in bringing temperatures down again rapidly Good @sciam piece by @chelseaeharvey, on our new @NatureGeosci comment (https://t.co/NJVCr0r5TO) https://t.co/YLaTq54V0G @andreasloeschel htt
RT @NatureGeosci: N Geo Comment by @Oliver_Geden : climate scientists must provide clear limits on temperature overshoot scenarios https://…